TADPOLE FARM COMMUNITY RESOLUTION
Oakhurst Residents’ Association representatives attended a meeting of the North Swindon Forum, called Connecting People/Connecting Places (CPCP), on 8th March 2011 and the following resolution concerning development in North Swindon was voted on and carried by ORA, Blunsdon Parish Council, Haydon Wick Parish Council and Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association:
“There should be no further development in North Swindon until promised and future infrastructure is in place such as roads (Iffley Link Road), community facilities and schools. We ask that our cluster councillors take this resolution to Full Council as a motion to show their support for the community in North Swindon.”
This resolution was amended (see below) by the Conservative Group
at Swindon Borough Council and our local councillors Stoddart, Heaton-Jones and Tomlinson from Abbey Meads supported the amendment despite concerns expressed by the community groups who had voted for the original resolution. ORA wrote to the North Swindon MP asking for his support for the community view as he had spoken out against development at Tadpole Farm at ORA’s public meeting on 6th April 2011. He did not reply until after the amended resolution/motion had been passed by the Conservative councillors at Full Council:“I will continue to keep a close eye on this issue and await the developers’ proposals. Infrastructure is key, as the impact on existing residents must be paramount when striking the need for additional development across the town.
Apologies Full Council has now passed, however I understand the principle of both versions, so will continue to raise these points.
Other North Swindon Forum Conservative councillors also supported the following amendment (taken from the minutes of Full Council on 14th April 2011 - http://tinyurl.com/SBC-Council-Minutes-14Apr2011):
Councillor Peter Stoddart (Abbey Meads) moved and Councillor David Renard (Haydon Wick) seconded:
“This Council notes that the Tadpole Farm consultation on the proposed development of 1700 houses will, if built, rely on the current Swindon infrastructure.
This Council notes the concerns raised by Blunsdon St Andrew Parish Council, Haydon Wick Parish Council, Oakhurst Residents’ Association and Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association at a North Swindon Cluster meeting regarding the possible traffic implications of the development.
This Council requests that the Borough Council’s Planning Committee consider these concerns as part of the wider consultation on the draft Core Strategy and report back to the Lead Cabinet Member in due course.”
(Labour) Councillor Des Moffatt moved and (Labour) Councillor Derique Montaut seconded that the (Conservative) Motion be amended to read:
“This Council notes the Tadpole Farm consultation by a developer on the proposed development of 1700 houses.
This Council notes the concerns raised by Blunsdon St Andrew Parish Council, Haydon Wick Parish Council, Oakhurst Residents’ Association and Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association at a North Swindon Cluster meeting regarding the possible traffic implications of the development.
This Council invites the Borough Council’s Planning Committee to consider these concerns should an application be received.
As part of the wider consultation on the draft Core Strategy document this Council requests that officers consider recommending that no occupation of any part of Tadpole Farm be permitted until infrastructure is in place to accommodate resulting traffic from such occupations.
In order to provide the proper road requirements that are needed for the Tadpole Farm development, this Council requests its Director of Planning and Transport to investigate how a Spine Road could connect with the A419 without affecting the residents of Blunsdon and the conclusion arising from that study be made available to the Planning Committee at the time of consideration of any planning application.
Members of ORA’s committee attended Full Council at the Borough on April 14th 2011 having heard that the community resolution had been substantially altered and asked the following question of the Leader, Councillor Roderick Bluh:
“Can the Leader account for his nullification of CPCP by altering such an unequivocal resolution into a politically-suiting motion that bears no resemblance to the community view?”
The Leader answered that “the councillors are not delegates at CPCP and they do not have to support the community view.”
| The Amendment was put to the vote and declared lost. The Substantive Motion was put to the vote and declared carried. |
